Guide
How to write a competitor analysis
A competitor section is not a list of rivals. It is an explanation of why a customer would choose you, written in terms a reader can verify.
A competitor analysis identifies who the customer would otherwise use, what each option offers at what price, and where the gap is that your business fills. It ends with a reason to win that a reader can test.
Who counts as a competitor
| Type | Example | Why include |
|---|---|---|
| Direct | A similar business in the same catchment | The obvious alternative |
| Indirect | A different product solving the same need | Often the real competition |
| Substitute | Doing nothing, or DIY | Frequently the largest share |
| Future | Announced entrants | Affects timing and pricing |
Excluding substitutes is the most common mistake. A customer who simply does not buy is a competitor for the spend.
What to compare
| Dimension | Why |
|---|---|
| Positioning | What they claim and who they target |
| Price band | Where your price sits and why |
| Offer | Range, quality, service level |
| Location or reach | Access, delivery, coverage |
| Evidence of demand | Reviews, footfall, occupancy, listings |
| Apparent gaps | Underserved segments or unmet needs |
Presenting it fairly
Use public information: websites, menus, price lists, listings, published reviews. Record the date of each observation.
Do not invent competitor financials, customer numbers or internal weaknesses. Do not use disparaging language. A reader who sees one unsupported claim starts discounting the rest.
From analysis to position
The output is not a table; it is a sentence: customers in [segment] currently choose [alternative] because [reason]; they are poorly served on [dimension]; we will win by [specific capability], which is defensible because [reason].
That sentence should appear, in some form, in the executive summary.
Common failures
- A list with no prices.
- "No competition" — almost always wrong.
- Comparing on dimensions where you are weak and ignoring the ones that matter to customers.
- No link between the analysis and the pricing model.
- Outdated observations with no dates.
What it feeds
| Output | Used in |
|---|---|
| Price band | Revenue assumptions |
| Positioning gap | Marketing plan |
| Competitor strength | Risk section |
| Entry response | Downside scenario |
For the wider market section, see market analysis.
A comparison table that survives scrutiny
Illustrative structure for a fictional business.
| Competitor | Positioning | Price band | Strengths | Gaps |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| National chain | Convenience and consistency | Mid | Brand, locations, app | Impersonal service, limited range |
| Local independent | Quality and relationships | Mid to high | Knowledge, flexibility | Inconsistent hours, no delivery |
| Online-only | Price and range | Low to mid | Wide catalogue, fast checkout | No physical inspection, returns friction |
| Do nothing | Existing habit | Zero | No switching cost | Unmet need persists |
The "do nothing" row is not a joke. For many small businesses the largest competitor is the customer's current habit, and a plan that ignores it overstates the switching opportunity.
How to gather the evidence
- Visit competitors as a customer and record prices and service levels.
- Check published price lists and menus, and note the date.
- Read reviews for recurring complaints — they often reveal the gap worth targeting.
- Check delivery platforms for coverage and pricing.
- Speak to suppliers, who usually know who is expanding or contracting.
None of that requires paid data, and all of it is more current than a market report.
What to do with a strong incumbent
If a well-funded competitor already serves the segment, the plan must answer why a customer would switch. Acceptable answers include a location advantage, a narrower offer that serves a specific need better, a service model they cannot replicate economically, or a customer group they have chosen not to serve.
Unacceptable answers include "better quality", "passion" and "we will try harder". They may all be true; none of them is a strategy.